superpunk said:
My initial argument was that based on Lloyd's production in the past, and his inability to hang onto the ball, he's not a huge upgrade over what you had there already. He's not going to get as many opportunities. I never attempted to say that he could get better or worse - that's pointless speculation, and an argument noone can win. But, based on trends he's established so far, I see no reason to be WOWed by him.
He could be better. He could be worse. Gotcha.
I agree, there's no reason to be WOWed by a guy that had 40-something catches and 500-something yards. Duh.
He's still a lot better than the guy he's replacing. That's the relevant point. Not the WOW factor.
So your contention is that Lloyd will be the #3? Whoever sits in that spot will have his numbers drop appreciably. I looked through the list, and I didn't see a single #3 receiver ranked - save for ones who stepped up due to injury to higher ranked players.
Yes. Gibbs has said Lloyd's the #3 and Randel El's the #2. I'll go with that.
Tim Rattay has a completetion percentage for his career over 60%. Dorsey 54%, but he only started 10 games with the 49ers. Obviously there were some players on that team, catching a higher percentage of passes thrown. The QB excuse is really nothing more than a cop-out. Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald have crap (although somewhat better crap) throwing to them, and they each have catch percentages over 60. Derrick Mason actually improved his catch percentage this year, playing with Kyle Boller, rather than Steve McNair and Billy Volek.
Ugh. Fine. I'm really way past arguing the minutae surrounding lousy QBs in a lousy offensive system run by a rookie coach whose claim to fame is defense. If you are convinced that QBs and playcalling have no bearing on a WRs play, more power to you. And just to make you feel even more clever, I'll happily concede that Lloyd is nowhere NEAR the player Boldin or Fitzgerald are. Then again, I don't think anyone's excepting him to be. We just want him to be better than Patten and Thrash.
Catches, yards, and TDs are all relative, as well. Lloyd put up #2 receiver numbers as a #1 previously. Randle El averages 500 yards and 1.75 TDs per year, and did worse when they bumped him up to a #2 - which is where you have him. In two years starting as a #1, Lloyd averages 650 yards and 5.5 TDs per year. As a #3 receiver, those numbers are bound to decline.
Interesting stuff. Moving down the depth chart inevitably hurts a player's numbers, yet Randel El puts up better numbers when he's ... further down the depth chart. Heh.
Bottom line, Lloyd has a reputation as a player who will make some great catches, and drop just as many easy ones, lacking focus. I toook that reputation, and what I've seen of him, and looked for facts and statistics to see if it had an merit.
Turns out it does.
You culled out one statisitcal study that supports your theory and held it up as the be-all and end-all of WR production. That's downright silly, especially in light of the fact that the it is not and never will be one of the established gauges for WR production in the NFL. In 2003, Terrell Owens was not the 22nd best WR in the league, was he? He had 80 catches for 1100 yards and 9 TDs and went to the pro-bowl, but his rating on that chart has him at 22nd, catching 55% of his passes. So apprently he was just a guy noone noticed had a case of the dropsies. Randel El should have been getting all the attention that year, apprently, as he was catching 66% of his passes. Where was his name that year? Sure he only caught 37 passes for 364 yards, but what hands! He had a better year than Torry Holt, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, Santana Moss and Hines Ward, and noone noticed. Ah, the injustice.
Nah. Your little study may provide a small piece of the picture, but a very small one, not nearly large enough to make the sweeping judgements you've made here.
But, just for kicks, I will point out that both Lloyd and Randel El had a higher 'catch percentage' than Patten last year. So even by your narrow standards ... still an upgrade.
:laugh2: :laugh1: